Original Literary Works

Month: October 2016

The Kiss & Grab Protocol for seducing a prospective sexual partner seems to have become universally deplorable given the comments I have read since Donald Trump’s vulgar confession to his escapades, captured on a hot mic back in 2005. To kiss and grab a girl is apparently an assault today no matter when it occurred.

I think he was just bragging about conquests that may have not happened, as mentally arrested men are wont to do in private, but perhaps one-hundred women will soon come forward to have their picture taken together as his victims. I believe he thought his comments were private, so there is the possibility that Billy Bush committed a civil and criminal violation of wiretap law.

But that is beside the point. The point is, What protocol is proper for advancing our sexual cause?

I am an old man now so maybe things have changed since I was in the Fifth Grade, when Kiss & Grab was the primitive boyhood ritual for want of a different education for getting serious with girls.

I fell in love with Anne, and kissed her in they alley on the way home from school. That was the greatest thrill of my life up to that moment, and I did not think of grabbing her.

A week later, Karen was hanging upside down in the schoolyard from a jungle gym bar, and I unwittingly grabbed her, in the wrong place, I learned, for I got a dozen whacks with the heavy paddle with holes in it. I figured that a kiss should precede a grab to make sure the object of affection is willing.

Well, that was the beginning of my career with the Kiss & Grab Protocol. I did not believe that “No” meant “Yes” with one or the other move. I did discovered that the negative could be changed into an affirmative with some gentle persuasion. If not, I backed off.

Some ladies even took the initiative, especially in the District of Columbia. Some employed the Kiss & Grab Protocol, while others used a different approach.

By the way, I never laid a hand on an English woman because I was told that the protocol involved nine steps in a certain order.

Now I wonder, What is the best procedure for initiating the propagation of the species?

Should not that procedure be demonstrated and lectured on in all grammar schools, perhaps by way of films?

The pseudo-Darwinian notion of the neoconservative regressive faction, that if the strongest are allowed to struggle for their existence freed from governmental regulation, then the human race will naturally if not religiously progress to higher levels of civilization, is exposed as patently false by the very existence of civilization itself, for the historical progress of civilization has been in the protection of the weakest from the strongest, an advance associated with the progress of liberty—liberty happens to be Lady Liberty when personified.

For instance, it is often remarked that the progress of a civilization can be measured by the relative status of the physically weaker sex. Morals matter more than might wherever Lady Liberty presides. Yet the neoconservatives fall back upon the irrational premise that might is right, a premise that wrought havoc on the world when taken up with a vengeance by the paranoid neoconservative leaders of the Second and Third Reichs.

Likewise, today’s neoconservative prejudice is based upon related delusions of persecution and grandeur, a feeling of superiority and a related fear that the superior status felt or wanted will be lost to the moral regulation of the hated liberals, who look to the duly constituted democratic state instead of to blind instinct or blind faith for the progress of humanity. Ironically, the neoconservatives, if given enough rope to hang themselves, wind up with a much larger and more expensive and repressive government than the liberal government they hated so much.

It is only human to believe that we are superior when we are in comfortable circumstances. Affluent Americans have been led to believe, even contrary to their professedly universal faith, that they as individuals deserve their wealth and comforts, while the impoverished deserve their poverty and miseries. When the Great Asian Tsunami left a million people homeless in its wake, affluent Americans were quick to come to their aid, yet they still maintained, in respect to the homeless on their own streets, that homeless people want to be homeless – that is why so many of them have chosen to be addicted to drugs and alcohol.

Social disaster is neither a natural disaster nor a matter of chance – or so the neoconservative reasoning goes. Unfortunate people have chosen poverty, homelessness, addiction, disease and insanity because they are, unfortunately, morally inferior people. They are most likely morally inferior because they were born that way. Their weakness should not be reinforced by coming to their aid by means of involuntary taxation of the society of selfishness. Individuals should get what they deserve and the government should get off of the backs of the few “economically active” people, those economically higher people who should prevail if the race is to progress instead of degenerate. Since truly “economically active” people are big producers who produce much more than they consume, the income tax should be replaced by a consumption tax so that those who consume a greater share of their smaller income will pay the highest proportion of taxes.

At least we no longer hear proposals that women with unnaturally narrow hips be left to die in childbirth and that premature babies be sacrificed to uphold the progress of the superior portion of the human race. Still, we have due cause to believe that, if the neoconservatives were allowed to struggle for their existence without government interference, the race would be left with a very low brow.